| Course | EDP 810 The Psychology of Leadership |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Doctoral self-assessment |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 810 Module 6
Seeing What I Tend Not to See: An Assessment of My Leadership Frames
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 810: The Psychology of Leadership
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Seeing What I Tend Not to See: An Assessment of My Leadership Frames
For four years I have run the invented Des Moines youth agency this course follows. The stalled case record rollout examined in earlier modules was, in part, a product of how I see organizations. This paper uses Bolman and Deal's frames to assess my own preferences, compare them with research and plan how to see more. I and my agency are composites written for this course.
The Instrument and My Results
Bolman and Deal (2021) offer a leadership orientations instrument that asks leaders how often they behave in ways associated with each frame, such as building clear structures, supporting and empowering people, building alliances or inspiring others with a vision. I completed the self-rating version and asked my deputy, two supervisors and the board chair to complete the version for colleagues. I scored highest on the structural frame and nearly as high on the human resource frame. My symbolic score was moderate and my political score lowest. My colleagues' ratings followed the same order, but they rated my political frame even lower than I did and my symbolic frame slightly higher.
| Frame | Self-rating (out of 5) | Colleagues' average | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural | 4.4 | 4.3 | Clear goals and systems; my default |
| Human resource | 4.2 | 4.0 | Supportive one to one; less attentive to teams |
| Symbolic | 3.3 | 3.6 | Stronger in speeches than in everyday practice |
| Political | 2.7 | 2.2 | Avoids conflict; slow to read coalitions |
What the Research Says
In the 1991 study by Bolman and Deal, leaders and the people who worked with them completed parallel questionnaires across business, education and government; the more frames a leader drew on, the higher colleagues rated that leader's effectiveness. Structural scores went with being seen as a good manager; political and symbolic scores went with being seen as a good leader. My profile suggests I am likely to be seen as a capable manager and a weaker leader in situations that turn on conflict and meaning, which describes the rollout.
Thompson (2000) tested Bolman and Deal's model alongside another leadership framework in a sample of managers, examining gender, frame orientation and rated effectiveness. Men and women did not differ significantly in their frame orientations, and leaders who used frames in a balanced way were rated more effective regardless of gender. The finding cautions me against explaining my profile through assumptions about women's leadership. My low political score reflects habits I can change, not a fixed feature of who I am.
How My Preferences Shaped the Rollout
My preferences shaped each stage of the rollout. I saw the system as a structural solution to funders' reporting demands, and I delegated its selection to the data team and finance director because that was efficient. I did not notice that the supervisors had been left out, a political problem my lowest frame could not see. When resistance appeared, I responded with structure, through deadlines and reports, and human resource support, through training. Only later did I realize I had also relied on an upward appeal by asking the board chair to speak, a political move made without political analysis. And I announced the launch by memo, ignoring the symbolic frame entirely.
Blind Spots
Two blind spots stand out. First, I avoid conflict and assume that good reasons will win; I treated Joan's opposition as misunderstanding rather than as a legitimate interest backed by real power. Second, I treat symbolic action as something for speeches and annual events rather than for everyday decisions such as how a change is announced.
A Development Plan
I will strengthen my political frame in three ways. I will ask a board member with long experience in local government to mentor me, meeting monthly to discuss upcoming decisions. Before any major change, I will complete a stakeholder map of interests and power and share it with my deputy for challenge. And I will meet each supervisor individually every quarter, asking what they see that I do not. For the symbolic frame, I will plan the meaning of each major change alongside its structure, asking what story it tells and what ritual, if any, should mark it. In a year, I will repeat the instrument with the same colleagues and compare results.
Why the Rating Gap Matters
The gap between my self-ratings and my colleagues' ratings on the political frame is itself a finding. I rated myself as moderately weak; they rated me as clearly weak. Leaders often overestimate their use of frames they value less, perhaps because they notice their rare political moves more than the many occasions when they avoided conflict. My colleagues saw those occasions: the supervisors' meeting I postponed, the budget disagreement I settled by deferring to finance. Their view is closer to how my leadership is experienced, and therefore closer to what determines whether people follow me.
Strengths Worth Keeping
The assessment is not only about gaps. My structural and human resource strengths serve the agency well. Our funding has grown, our systems pass audits and staff turnover is lower than at comparable agencies. Bolman and Deal (1991) found that structural strength predicts effectiveness as a manager, and the agency needs good management. The aim is not to trade these strengths for others but to add frames, so that I can use whichever a situation calls for.
A Test Case
The next major change, a move to a new office building in eighteen months, will be my first test. Before announcing it, I will map stakeholders, discuss the map with my mentor, meet each supervisor and plan how the move will be marked and explained. My deputy will give me feedback afterward on which frames she saw me use.
What Colleagues Told Me
The open comments on the colleague version were as useful as the scores. One supervisor wrote that I was "fair but hard to disagree with in meetings," which suggested that my preference for structure can make the agenda feel settled before discussion begins. My deputy wrote that I was at my best one to one. Both comments point to the same development need: making room for disagreement in groups, where political and symbolic leadership mostly happen.
Conclusion
Bolman and Deal's instrument and research show that my structural and human resource strengths make me an effective manager, but that my weaker political and symbolic frames limit my leadership in conflict and change. Thompson's study shows these are habits rather than traits. A plan built around a mentor, stakeholder mapping and symbolic planning aims to widen what I see.
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930300406
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, M. D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the theoretical models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11-12), 969-992. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007032500072
What the EDP 810 Module 6 instructions ask for
The sixth module of EDP 810 usually asks for an assessment of your own frame preferences. The Module 6 instructions in your Aspen course decide the method; this leader is a composite. Report your results on a recognized instrument, ideally with others' ratings as well as your own. Compare your profile with research on frame use and effectiveness. Trace how your preferences shaped a real decision. Identify blind spots honestly. Plan specific steps to strengthen weaker frames, with a way to check progress. Cite in APA 7 at a doctoral level, and remember that frame preferences describe habits of seeing, not fixed traits. If you can, compare your self-ratings with colleagues' ratings and explain any gaps.
How this EDP 810 Module 6 example is built
Daniela, the composite executive director, completes Bolman and Deal's leadership orientations survey and asks four colleagues to rate her as well. She scores highest on the structural and human resource frames and lowest on the political. Bolman and Deal's 1991 study links multi-frame use to rated effectiveness, with political and symbolic frames tied to leadership. Thompson's study finds similar orientations in women and men and higher ratings for leaders who balance frames. A four-row table compares her self-ratings with colleagues' ratings, and a development plan names a political mentor, a stakeholder mapping habit and a symbolic practice for each major change. A section discusses why the gap between self and colleague ratings matters.
Reading the EDP 810 Module 6 grading rubric
A strong self-assessment paper uses a recognized instrument, compares self-ratings with others' and links the profile to a real episode. This example reports both sets of ratings and notes where they differ. It uses research on multi-frame leadership to explain why the gaps matter. Thompson's study is used carefully to address gender without stereotyping. The rollout shows how the profile shaped Daniela's choices. The development plan is specific, with activities, a mentor and a check after a year, so the reflection leads to change. The comparison of self-ratings with colleagues' ratings is treated as evidence in its own right, since gaps reveal blind spots, and the conflict-avoidance habit is examined honestly rather than excused.
EDP 810 Module 6 help from the desk
Self-assessment papers often report scores without interpretation or treat the profile as a fixed type. Use a recognized instrument and, if you can, others' ratings. Compare the profile with research on effectiveness. Trace it through a real decision, showing what you saw and missed. Plan concrete steps to strengthen weaker frames, with a check on progress. Address gender or other identities carefully, using evidence rather than assumptions about how groups lead. Treat the gap between your ratings and others' as data. Choose development activities that put you in the situations your weaker frames handle, such as negotiations for the political frame. Set a date to reassess, and name who will rate you again.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 810 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 810 Module 1: The Four Frames and Reframing
- EDP 810 Module 2: The Structural Frame
- EDP 810 Module 3: The Human Resource Frame
- EDP 810 Module 4: The Political Frame
- EDP 810 Module 5: The Symbolic Frame
- EDP 810 Module 7: The Neuroscience of Leadership
- EDP 810 Module 8: Leading Change Across the Frames
- EDN 820 Module 7: Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles
- EDN 818 Module 6: Lean Redesign of a Clinical Process
- EDO 818 Module 8: Cultural Intelligence and a Leadership Plan
- EDO 812 Module 7: Systems and Structures That Sustain Innovation
EDP 810 Module 6 questions, answered
What does EDP 810 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 810 covers personal frame preferences in this module, so a self-assessment of your frames with a development plan is typical. Check your Module 6 prompt.
How do I find my leadership frame preferences?
Bolman and Deal's leadership orientations instrument measures how often a leader uses each frame; ratings from colleagues add a valuable second view.
Do men and women prefer different frames?
Thompson found no significant difference in men's and women's frame orientations, and leaders of both genders who balanced frames were rated more effective.
Where can I find a free EDP 810 Module 6 sample paper?
The entire paper is here: a frame profile with self and colleague ratings, the research behind it, one episode traced and a development plan.
Which frames matter most for leadership?
Bolman and Deal's 1991 study found the political and symbolic frames were the strongest predictors of rated leadership effectiveness, and the structural frame of management effectiveness.